Debating the 2016 Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates
Objectives:
Students will analyze and discuss the language, styles, message(s) and context of the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
Students will practice writing formal, persuasive prose in a digital setting, maintaining safe and professional practices for online citizenry.
Instructions:
Students can access the debates and related information/links by clicking the "Presidential/ Vice Presidential" Debate Tabs (Right). Once students have viewed a debate, considered it from a critical and analytical perspective, and formed an opinion about any aspect related to the debate, (s)he should click on the discussion tab (upper right), and either create a line of debate or participate in an existing discussion by clicking on the relevant tab and proceeding accordingly.
Guiding Questions (for Rhetoric):
Identify at least three rhetorical strategies used, and write the specific line for each.
Which rhetorical strategy was most effective? Explain why it is most effective.
Identify one logical fallacy used and write the line. Was this fallacy effective? Why?
Who was the most persuasive overall? Why? Be specific.
Assessment
Student participation will be assessed on the following scale:
4 (Exceeds): Makes specific references to debates, peers, and/or secondary sources to support & defend ideas on a consistent basis. Demonstrates respect & enthusiasm. Works to support all participants at all times. Questions & ideas are apt, insightful, & logical; and contribute to construction of meaning
3 (Meets): Makes specific references to debates, peers, and/ or secondary sources to support & defend ideas only when challenged. Demonstrates respect but may be less than totally supportive of others at times. Questions & comments are apt & logical but lack insight to move group forward.
2 (Approaching): Makes few references to debates, peers, and secondary sources to support & defend ideas even when challenged. Responses suggest a lack of understanding of purpose. Lacks sense of teamwork. Questions & ideas reveal personal reactions, but not logical, apt arguments.
1 (Below): Makes no specific references to debates, peers, or secondary sources to support & defend ideas. Does not display respect or enthusiasm for discussion or other participants. Remarks are illogical, difficult to follow, & offer the group no benefit.
Objectives:
Students will analyze and discuss the language, styles, message(s) and context of the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
Students will practice writing formal, persuasive prose in a digital setting, maintaining safe and professional practices for online citizenry.
Instructions:
Students can access the debates and related information/links by clicking the "Presidential/ Vice Presidential" Debate Tabs (Right). Once students have viewed a debate, considered it from a critical and analytical perspective, and formed an opinion about any aspect related to the debate, (s)he should click on the discussion tab (upper right), and either create a line of debate or participate in an existing discussion by clicking on the relevant tab and proceeding accordingly.
Guiding Questions (for Rhetoric):
Assessment
Student participation will be assessed on the following scale:
4 (Exceeds): Makes specific references to debates, peers, and/or secondary sources to support & defend ideas on a consistent basis. Demonstrates respect & enthusiasm. Works to support all participants at all times. Questions & ideas are apt, insightful, & logical; and contribute to construction of meaning
3 (Meets): Makes specific references to debates, peers, and/ or secondary sources to support & defend ideas only when challenged. Demonstrates respect but may be less than totally supportive of others at times. Questions & comments are apt & logical but lack insight to move group forward.
2 (Approaching): Makes few references to debates, peers, and secondary sources to support & defend ideas even when challenged. Responses suggest a lack of understanding of purpose. Lacks sense of teamwork. Questions & ideas reveal personal reactions, but not logical, apt arguments.
1 (Below): Makes no specific references to debates, peers, or secondary sources to support & defend ideas. Does not display respect or enthusiasm for discussion or other participants. Remarks are illogical, difficult to follow, & offer the group no benefit.